just a simple question.
WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here, WHY can't we just kick these incumbents out and get ppl we really like in Gov't.
best,
j.

Good question DR, and I think the answer is that no single party reflects the ideals of the general population, and most people see policies of worth from both the major parties, as well as policies they cannot go along with.

I see many posters here that would be seen as being "Liberal" supporters, whose opinions I agree with in many areas, and who usually post intelligent arguments to describe why they support certain policies, even if I disagree with them.
Posters like Verge, Gizmo Aussie Free, etc. can hold these opposing views, without resorting to the ridiculous idiotic far right fanboy antics of the likes of some other members here who merely oppose any and all policies that do not originate from their party of choice, and the same can be said of those holding the opposite political views, with those who can happily approve of Bi-Partisan support for policies they think will benefit the country, irrespective of who proposes it first.
So I think that there is a solid core of centre left, and centre right supporters, that could happily vote for any major party that adopted true centrist policies, while the loony left, and right, will always have their advocates banging on, creating a disproportionate amount of noise, which tends to see both current major parties, hanging on to extremist policies that even near centre voters, cannot condone, and so the divide continues.

I have long hoped for the Liberal party to split, and reform as a true centre party, ejecting the extremist elements, and I strongly believe that if they did that, they would gather the majority support, very quickly, by becoming exactly the sort of option that so many aussies are looking for.

I would like to think that Labor could do that also, but I fear their union ties would prove to large a barrier for them to overcome, and so my best hope lies with the Liberals, and the jettisoned extremists could form a minority Nationalist type of party in the mould of One Nation, to provide representation for the 10% or so that currently adhere to the more far right policies.

It will need to be a move from within the party to begin with, but if it ever happens, I know that I will not be alone in supporting them, because I get the feeling a lot of aussies are sick of the pandering to extremist views from both parties, and are just waiting for a real centre option to arise.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 10:32am:

Good question DR, and I think the answer is that no single party reflects the ideals of the general population, and most people see policies of worth from both the major parties, as well as policies they cannot go along with. I see many posters here that would be seen as being "Liberal" supporters, whose opinions I agree with in many areas, and who usually post intelligent arguments to describe why they support certain policies, even if I disagree with them. Posters like Verge, Gizmo Aussie Free, etc. can hold these opposing views, without resorting to the ridiculous idiotic far right fanboy antics of the likes of some other members here who merely oppose any and all policies that do not originate from their party of choice, and the same can be said of those holding the opposite political views, with those who can happily approve of Bi-Partisan support for policies they think will benefit the country, irrespective of who proposes it first. So I think that there is a solid core of centre left, and centre right supporters, that could happily vote for any major party that adopted true centrist policies, while the loony left, and right, will always have their advocates banging on, creating a disproportionate amount of noise, which tends to see both current major parties, hanging on to extremist policies that even near centre voters, cannot condone, and so the divide continues. I have long hoped for the Liberal party to split, and reform as a true centre party, ejecting the extremist elements, and I strongly believe that if they did that, they would gather the majority support, very quickly, by becoming exactly the sort of option that so many aussies are looking for. I would like to think that Labor could do that also, but I fear their union ties would prove to large a barrier for them to overcome, and so my best hope lies with the Liberals, and the jettisoned extremists could form a minority Nationalist type of party in the mould of One Nation, to provide representation for the 10% or so that currently adhere to the more far right policies. It will need to be a move from within the party to begin with, but if it ever happens, I know that I will not be alone in supporting them, because I get the feeling a lot of aussies are sick of the pandering to extremist views from both parties, and are just waiting for a real centre option to arise.

I keep hearing you refer to 'extremist' elements but given that teh policies of libs and labor are pretty much identical exactly what are the 'extremist' policies.

Quote:

WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here,

I'm not unhappy, I'm more amused.

I hated John Howard with a passion, but do I think either him or his govt did a bad job overall?  nup

Let's face it, most of us are just on here to sook, bat for our team, abuse the opposing team or say sh!t simply to rile others.

If there are some on here who actually care that much about politics - geez, that must suck and can't be good for your blood pressure.

i actually do believe that most here would like just ONE stable administration.
the westminster system might have work a coupla hundred yrs back, but it's too
easy to "work it" now.
surely this last election was a no confidence vote?

one thing i'd like is the police force be completely separated from the politics.
and nubbled.
no weapons.
no invasive power.
only solving crimes like murder, robbery, etc.
the courts are flooded with petty crimes and vexed situations, rather than dealing with
more serious matters.
a waste of tax payers money.

thanks.
j.

djrbfm wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

i actually do believe that most here would like just ONE stable administration. the westminster system might have work a coupla hundred yrs back, but it's too easy to "work it" now. surely this last election was a no confidence vote? one thing i'd like is the police force be completely separated from the politics. and nubbled. no weapons. no invasive power. only solving crimes like murder, robbery, etc. the courts are flooded with petty crimes and vexed situations, rather than dealing with more serious matters. a waste of tax payers money. thanks. j.

we DO have stable systems. your definition of stable is obviously incorrecnt. and the police ARE not a political force. Im not exactly sure what your problem is.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 5:51pm:

djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 5:48pm: i actually do believe that most here would like just ONE stable administration. the westminster system might have work a coupla hundred yrs back, but it's too easy to "work it" now. surely this last election was a no confidence vote? one thing i'd like is the police force be completely separated from the politics. and nubbled. no weapons. no invasive power. only solving crimes like murder, robbery, etc. the courts are flooded with petty crimes and vexed situations, rather than dealing with more serious matters. a waste of tax payers money. thanks. j. we DO have stable systems. your definition of stable is obviously incorrecnt. and the police ARE not a political force. Im not exactly sure what your problem is.

In WA the polcie certainly ARE a political force.  Laws are drafted by police and then sent to parliament for ratification.

... wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 5:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 5:51pm: djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 5:48pm: i actually do believe that most here would like just ONE stable administration. the westminster system might have work a coupla hundred yrs back, but it's too easy to "work it" now. surely this last election was a no confidence vote? one thing i'd like is the police force be completely separated from the politics. and nubbled. no weapons. no invasive power. only solving crimes like murder, robbery, etc. the courts are flooded with petty crimes and vexed situations, rather than dealing with more serious matters. a waste of tax payers money. thanks. j. we DO have stable systems. your definition of stable is obviously incorrecnt. and the police ARE not a political force. Im not exactly sure what your problem is. In WA the polcie certainly ARE a political force.  Laws are drafted by police and then sent to parliament for ratification.

They dont 'draft' laws at all. they make suggestions and the parliament drafts the laws. Thats hardly making them a 'political force' anymore than a social service group making similar suggestion s.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:01pm:

... wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 5:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 5:51pm: djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 5:48pm: i actually do believe that most here would like just ONE stable administration. the westminster system might have work a coupla hundred yrs back, but it's too easy to "work it" now. surely this last election was a no confidence vote? one thing i'd like is the police force be completely separated from the politics. and nubbled. no weapons. no invasive power. only solving crimes like murder, robbery, etc. the courts are flooded with petty crimes and vexed situations, rather than dealing with more serious matters. a waste of tax payers money. thanks. j. we DO have stable systems. your definition of stable is obviously incorrecnt. and the police ARE not a political force. Im not exactly sure what your problem is. In WA the polcie certainly ARE a political force.  Laws are drafted by police and then sent to parliament for ratification. They dont 'draft' laws at all. they make suggestions and the parliament drafts the laws. Thats hardly making them a 'political force' anymore than a social service group making similar suggestion s.

Not only that, every department (via its senior public servants) drafts bills on behalf of its minister or cabinet. Senior public servants are professionals in their department's functions. Who else would you get to draft bills for, say, a Transport Department, other than the professionals who have spent decades in the field?

You'd have to be in WA to see for yourself.

... wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:08pm:

You'd have to be in WA to see for yourself.

care to offer something to prove that they DRAFT laws rather than make recommendations?

and even if they did (or any other group), it is still parliament that passes them so i reject your assertion that the police ar a political force. I can think they are petty, incompetent and stupid. I dont think much of them at all. But they arent a political group.

... wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:08pm:

You'd have to be in WA to see for yourself.

See what? Senior public servants drafting bills (proposed legislation) ? Go into any government department on work experience and discuss drafting bills for the minister with senior public servants... It ain't no secret.

That's one of the many functions of the public service.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:12pm:

... wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:08pm: You'd have to be in WA to see for yourself. care to offer something to prove that they DRAFT laws rather than make recommendations? and even if they did (or any other group), it is still parliament that passes them so i reject your assertion that the police ar a political force. I can think they are petty, incompetent and stupid. I dont think much of them at all. But they arent a political group.

there was some editorial in the west australian a few months back that made the claims...I can't be bothered trying to find it now.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:06pm:

Not only that, every department (via its senior public servants) drafts bills on behalf of its minister or cabinet. Senior public servants are professionals in their department's functions. Who else would you get to draft bills for, say, a Transport Department, other than the professionals who have spent decades in the field?

Not only that every senior public servant has technical and legal staff that do the bulk of the drafting of the bill which the senior oversees.

Sappho wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:06pm: Not only that, every department (via its senior public servants) drafts bills on behalf of its minister or cabinet. Senior public servants are professionals in their department's functions. Who else would you get to draft bills for, say, a Transport Department, other than the professionals who have spent decades in the field? Not only that every senior public servant has technical and legal staff that do the bulk of the drafting of the bill which the senior oversees.

Yes, no doubt. I'm not sure why some people think its a black art.

djrbfm wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 9:59am:

just a simple question. WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here, WHY can't we just kick these incumbents out and get ppl we really like in Gov't. best, j.

The incumbents, Liberal and Labor, work together to keep the Status Quo.

If the majority voted informal, do we get another election with brand new candidates?

... wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:12pm: ... wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:08pm: You'd have to be in WA to see for yourself. care to offer something to prove that they DRAFT laws rather than make recommendations? and even if they did (or any other group), it is still parliament that passes them so i reject your assertion that the police ar a political force. I can think they are petty, incompetent and stupid. I dont think much of them at all. But they arent a political group. there was some editorial in the west australian a few months back that made the claims...I can't be bothered trying to find it now.

if the police draft the legislation it woudl obviously be biased but it STILL has to get thru parliament. the public service is an apolitical group but it too drafts legislation. I just fail to see the jsutifciation in the 'political' claim. Drafting legislation is not a political function - it is an administrative or govermental one.

____ wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 9:59am: just a simple question. WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here, WHY can't we just kick these incumbents out and get ppl we really like in Gov't. best, j. The incumbents, Liberal and Labor, work together to keep the Status Quo. If the majority voted informal, do we get another election with brand new candidates?

if 90% voted informal, the votes of the remaining 10% are who choose the candidates - as you would expect.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:16pm:

Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:06pm: Not only that, every department (via its senior public servants) drafts bills on behalf of its minister or cabinet. Senior public servants are professionals in their department's functions. Who else would you get to draft bills for, say, a Transport Department, other than the professionals who have spent decades in the field? Not only that every senior public servant have technical and legal staff that do the bulk of the drafting of the bill which the senior oversees. Yes, no doubt. I'm not sure why some people think its a black art.

Maybe because the language of law is extremely technical and beyond the comprehension of most?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:20pm:

... wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:14pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:12pm: ... wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:08pm: You'd have to be in WA to see for yourself. care to offer something to prove that they DRAFT laws rather than make recommendations? and even if they did (or any other group), it is still parliament that passes them so i reject your assertion that the police ar a political force. I can think they are petty, incompetent and stupid. I dont think much of them at all. But they arent a political group. there was some editorial in the west australian a few months back that made the claims...I can't be bothered trying to find it now. if the police draft the legislation it woudl obviously be biased but it STILL has to get thru parliament. the public service is an apolitical group but it too drafts legislation. I just fail to see the jsutifciation in the 'political' claim. Drafting legislation is not a political function - it is an administrative or govermental one.

I wouldn't say biased except that police have at-the-coal-face experience... If the senior executive believe laws need to be enacted, you can bet those seniors have met with the minister and cabinet numerous times to discuss the proposed changes to legislation.

BTW when it comes to the Police Department, the police are bound by the laws as enacted by Parliament, not the instructions of the minister or cabinet. That's to ensure the Police do not become an instrument of political oppression.

Sappho wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:16pm: Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:06pm: Not only that, every department (via its senior public servants) drafts bills on behalf of its minister or cabinet. Senior public servants are professionals in their department's functions. Who else would you get to draft bills for, say, a Transport Department, other than the professionals who have spent decades in the field? Not only that every senior public servant have technical and legal staff that do the bulk of the drafting of the bill which the senior oversees. Yes, no doubt. I'm not sure why some people think its a black art. Maybe because the language of law is extremely technical and beyond the comprehension of most?

Evoking a paranoid and voodoo mentality?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:23pm:

____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:19pm: djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 9:59am: just a simple question. WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here, WHY can't we just kick these incumbents out and get ppl we really like in Gov't. best, j. The incumbents, Liberal and Labor, work together to keep the Status Quo. If the majority voted informal, do we get another election with brand new candidates? if 90% voted informal, the votes of the remaining 10% are who choose the candidates - as you would expect.

There was someone a few elections a while ago who tried to publicise this prior to an election yet was gagged. Does anyone remember this and know the details?

____ wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:23pm: ____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:19pm: djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 9:59am: just a simple question. WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here, WHY can't we just kick these incumbents out and get ppl we really like in Gov't. best, j. The incumbents, Liberal and Labor, work together to keep the Status Quo. If the majority voted informal, do we get another election with brand new candidates? if 90% voted informal, the votes of the remaining 10% are who choose the candidates - as you would expect. There was someone a few elections a while ago who tried to publicise this prior to an election yet was gagged. Does anyone remember this and know the details?

publish what? the fact that an informal vote doesnt count? u need to be TOLD that?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:32pm:

Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:27pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:16pm: Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:06pm: Not only that, every department (via its senior public servants) drafts bills on behalf of its minister or cabinet. Senior public servants are professionals in their department's functions. Who else would you get to draft bills for, say, a Transport Department, other than the professionals who have spent decades in the field? Not only that every senior public servant have technical and legal staff that do the bulk of the drafting of the bill which the senior oversees. Yes, no doubt. I'm not sure why some people think its a black art. Maybe because the language of law is extremely technical and beyond the comprehension of most? Evoking a paranoid and voodoo mentality?

I don't know.
I do think that a sound education should provide knowledge on the various ways in which law is created and interpreted.

As an aside, I think that knowledge on finance is rather important. I hear too many of my friends and colleagues speak guff based on spin then blame the finance industry when they get burned. If they knew what they were doing....

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:51pm:

____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:23pm: ____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:19pm: djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 9:59am: just a simple question. WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here, WHY can't we just kick these incumbents out and get ppl we really like in Gov't. best, j. The incumbents, Liberal and Labor, work together to keep the Status Quo. If the majority voted informal, do we get another election with brand new candidates? if 90% voted informal, the votes of the remaining 10% are who choose the candidates - as you would expect. There was someone a few elections a while ago who tried to publicise this prior to an election yet was gagged. Does anyone remember this and know the details? publish what? the fact that an informal vote doesnt count? u need to be TOLD that?

I realise you don't know, so the question is directed at other posters.

____ wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 7:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:51pm: ____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:23pm: ____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:19pm: djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 9:59am: just a simple question. WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here, WHY can't we just kick these incumbents out and get ppl we really like in Gov't. best, j. The incumbents, Liberal and Labor, work together to keep the Status Quo. If the majority voted informal, do we get another election with brand new candidates? if 90% voted informal, the votes of the remaining 10% are who choose the candidates - as you would expect. There was someone a few elections a while ago who tried to publicise this prior to an election yet was gagged. Does anyone remember this and know the details? publish what? the fact that an informal vote doesnt count? u need to be TOLD that? I realise you don't know, so the question is directed at other posters.

obviously YOU needed to be told that informal votes dont count!

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 7:15pm:

____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 7:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:51pm: ____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:23pm: ____ wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:19pm: djrbfm wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 9:59am: just a simple question. WHY, if everyone is so unhappy with the shape of things here, WHY can't we just kick these incumbents out and get ppl we really like in Gov't. best, j. The incumbents, Liberal and Labor, work together to keep the Status Quo. If the majority voted informal, do we get another election with brand new candidates? if 90% voted informal, the votes of the remaining 10% are who choose the candidates - as you would expect. There was someone a few elections a while ago who tried to publicise this prior to an election yet was gagged. Does anyone remember this and know the details? publish what? the fact that an informal vote doesnt count? u need to be TOLD that? I realise you don't know, so the question is directed at other posters. obviously YOU needed to be told that informal votes dont count!

got to have the last word old man.

Quote:

As an aside, I think that knowledge on finance is rather important. I hear too many of my friends and colleagues speak guff based on spin then blame the finance industry when they get burned. If they knew what they were doing....

-Sapho

As an aside, have you ever browsed the Bankruptcy notices in the daily papers?
If so you may have noticed the disproportionate number of "Financial Advisors" that find their way into those columns.
I always used to get a laugh from seeing them there, and also reinforced my opinion that the majority are sadly incompetent, or dishonest.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 7:26pm:

Quote: As an aside, I think that knowledge on finance is rather important. I hear too many of my friends and colleagues speak guff based on spin then blame the finance industry when they get burned. If they knew what they were doing.... -Sapho As an aside, have you ever browsed the Bankruptcy notices in the daily papers? If so you may have noticed the disproportionate number of "Financial Advisors" that find their way into those columns. I always used to get a laugh from seeing them there, and also reinforced my opinion that the majority are sadly incompetent, or dishonest.

My first cousin was a financial advisor... no qualifications required when he started 20 years ago... he and I have had some fine ol' disputes about the nature of finance and wealth acquisition. He belongs to that group who spins the guff my friends and colleagues take as gospel... and yes, he went bankrupt too.

A financial advisor merely spins the products for which they get a kick back... in the main.